The Mechanical Harvesting of Hemp Using In-Field Stand-Retting: A Simpler Approach Converted to the Production of Fibers for Industrial Use
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
In these article the title is a misleading, "Innovative System ..." implies a completely new design or method. From a "mechanical" point of view ... use a standard crop combine harvester with two fewer cutting elements to get longer stalks and try to see what happens with a "NEW" crop (I have to assume this has never been tried before in these type of crops) is a very valid first step to see if there is a future for a project where the design of a new equipment or method can take place, but it is just that ... an experiment.
To present the results of something new, a reference must always be presented to be able to compare. In this case, it should be presented how the harvest is usually done, what fibers, seeds, etc. are obtained, what cost is involved ... etc. In the article only the results of the experiment are shown, it is not known if these results are good or bad compared to the usual way of harvesting ... there is no reference to compare. It is not clear whether having long or short fibers is good or what is optimal.
The article clearly describes the experiment and the results obtained. If this is what you want to sell in the article, you have to say it in the title and in the abstract. In my opinion the article has to be completely rewritten.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: 
Author Response.docx
Reviewer 2 Report
This article presents interesting and quite useful information upon hemp harvesting especially by testing low cost, less aggressive adaptations upon existing equipment showcasing opportunities for a wider adoption from the productive chain. The text is well written and I have only two points to mention that should be stated more clear.
Lines 87-93. Were the rest 10 knives evenly re-allocated around the drum after the removal of the two? This should be clarified on the description. By simply removing two knives from each drum without changing the positions of the rest the researchers apparently managed to obtain a greater variation to the cutting length of the material, but they didn’t avoided the smaller parts. Furthermore, this should cause in-balance to the system (they do mention that). How severe was it and was it somehow qualified?
Lines 229-233. I don’t understand the statements on this paragraph. On the previous paragraph the authors mention that they decreased the number of knives in order to increase the cutting size. In lines 96-97 also, they state that the expected cutting length of fiber with 10 knives was 5 cm which, in the case of hemp, is the lowest acceptable limit. But here they mention that the machine was set to provide portions of shredded material with a (theoretical) length of no more than 21 mm? What was finally the desired length of the material? Aren’t chopped hemp pieces associated with fiber length? I believe that this paragraph should be re-writen in a more clear manner.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
Round 2
Reviewer 1 Report
- Really much better. what is sold at the beginning (title - abstract) can be found in the text.
- I think that in the first paragraph of seccion 3.3 you wrote the Title
Title - Study: Usefulness of a SPFH for the harvesting of hemp for industrial fibers.
- Conclusions... not really sure if the study is a success or not. Should a hemp farmers explore these path or not.
- How expensive is these new path?
- What is the normal profit of a farmer with the traditional way?
- Is industry willing to buy the obtained fibers (type/size of fibers)?
- How much will the farmers profit increase ?
If these can not be answered ... the only conclusions are the numbers of the study: % of fibers harvest that match what industry are willing to buy,how easy and efficient was the harvest (machine performance, machine time etc.), % of biomass collected in need for secondary process etc. ... every thing else is future work not conclusions.
Author Response
Please see the attachment
Author Response File: Author Response.docx
